House of Commons Hansard #156 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was general.

Topics

Point Of OrderOral Question Period

Noon

The Speaker

Yes, I asked him and I ask all members of the House not to refer to those who are or are not here.

I missed that, I am sorry. I will check the “blues”. I hope this will not recur this session.

Chief Electoral OfficeOral Question Period

Noon

The Speaker

I have the honour to table the report of the chief electoral officer on the byelection in the riding of Sherbrooke on September 14, 1998.

This document is deemed to have been permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Canadian Tourism CommissionRoutine Proceedings

November 20th, 1998 / 12:05 p.m.

St. Catharines Ontario

Liberal

Walt Lastewka LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Canadian Tourism Commission's annual report for 1997-98 entitled “Achieving a Critical Mass”.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 12 petitions.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Rose-Marie Ur Liberal Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am honoured to present petitions signed by residents of Grand Bend, Parkhill and Dashwood who note that all studies show that the manganese based MMT in gasoline has been proven to foul emission control devices, resulting in higher smog levels which will devastate our Kyoto climate change commitment.

The petitioners call on parliament to ban the use of the gasoline additive MMT.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Rick Borotsik Progressive Conservative Brandon—Souris, MB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of the constituents of my community who reside in the Spruce Woods Housing Co-operative.

It is a petition that has been taken by the residents of that co-operative. It deals with the hope that this government will give serious consideration to the proposal put forward by the co-operative housing sector to administer the federally assisted co-operative housing portfolio through a new non-profit, non-governmental organization established for that purpose.

With great respect, I present this petition to the House on behalf of those residents.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Wayne Easter Liberal Malpeque, PE

Mr. Speaker, I would like to present a petition on behalf of a number of constituents who pray that parliament will enact Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act. I present it on their behalf.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-58, an act to amend the Railway Safety Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

When the House was interrupted for question period the hon. member for Mississauga West had 13 minutes remaining for his remarks.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Steve Mahoney Liberal Mississauga West, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up where I left off which was on the issue of safety at rail crossings. As members know, at unprotected crossings there is a requirement for the engineer of an approaching train to warn, from a certain distance, anyone who might be at the crossing.

I was telling the House about the example in my own community where we were experiencing, in the middle of the night, very extended whistles that were disturbing entire residential communities. We discovered that there was one dirt or country road in the heart of the city not far from a landmark that many members may be familiar with, the Square I shopping centre. This gives members an idea of the density in the community.

This situation was caused because of an inability to acquire this particular piece of property when Highway 403 was built. It was left as an unprotected crossing and, as I mentioned, led to what is commonly referred to as lover's lane. This crossing was disturbing an entire neighbourhood.

It highlighted for me the importance of putting in proper protection at railway crossings.

I come from Mississauga. Recognizing that it is the 20th anniversary of the train derailment which occurred in our community which resulted in the largest peacetime evacuation in history, this is an issue which is very near and dear to my constituents and the people in our city.

I hope there is a vision for improvement to rail services. I think for example of the debate going on right now as to whether Union Station should be acquired by the city of Toronto, the province, the federal government, a private sector developer, or a combination thereof to ensure that the architectural structure of Union Station is preserved. While the history and the architecture is important it is the facility itself which I think is critical. I can see the day when Union Station would be connected to Pearson airport hopefully right through the heart of downtown Mississauga out to the airport. I could see a rail connection for charter passenger flights from the Hamilton airport connecting into Union Station and the downtown area of my community and perhaps even Pearson.

We could see in the future an expansion of rail services with high quality infrastructure in place which would allow commuters going to and from work and other people to access facilities such as Hamilton International Airport, Pearson, Union Station and everything in between. The future of rail I hope is not dead in this country. It is very important that we take a serious look at issues surrounding safety.

Short line railways have started up around the country as a result of the abandonment of certain sections of rail. We are winding up with private sector businesses getting together in some instances almost in the form of a co-op. I think of the short line that connects Collingwood, Stayner and Barrie in the south part of northern Ontario. It primarily serves the local businesses and allows them to interact with one another. It is vitally important if private sector railway companies are operating on these short line systems that safety be of prime concern.

I hope that one day the role of rail service in this country might be similar to the experience in Europe and in Japan. The bullet train in Japan, the Shinkansen, operates through the entire country. As our country grows and the infill of population occurs in urban communities, large populations are needed to make passenger service economically feasible, particularly when it is short line or commuter passenger service.

For example a subway system cannot work in areas where there are not large concentrations of people who can get on and off that facility. The same thing could occur in the area of rail. It is not a vision that exists today but I think it is one that we should be taking a serious look at.

There is a bit of history to show that this government is responding to safety in the area of rail services. I believe opposition parties are supportive of this. The government response to the report of the railway safety act review committee was tabled in parliament in June 1995. There were a number of amendments.

One was to streamline the administrative process, cut down on red tape, provide greater involvement for interested organizations in determining the rules which I think is a very democratic response.

Another was minimized disruption by train noise in communities. I referred to the unprotected crossings. It is not just the actual noise of the train that causes concern, but it is more the whistle as it extends to the broader community.

Another was to strengthen and clarify federal powers at grade crossings, something municipalities are very concerned about. To go under or over the tracks at a grade crossing I believe costs $7 million or $8 million in today's terms for a fundamental, simple grade separation. Municipalities are concerned with the interaction of the automobile and the train and would prefer to have those grades separated but obviously not at their expense.

The other amendment was to simplify and improve provisions for ensuring that appropriate safety measures are in place and finally to clarify and strengthen the power of railway safety inspectors.

Following that, Transport Canada immediately proceeded to make a number of other modifications which I would like to share with the House. One is that the new section on testing exemptions be amended to include immediate exemptions for a limited application of short duration; second, that the new section on whistle cessation be amended in order that any relevant association or organization be advised of the municipality's intention to pass the anti-whistling resolution. Once again, the importance of an unprotected grade crossing without a whistle would endanger public safety and is not something that any of us would like to see.

The bill came back to the House in 1996 but unfortunately, or fortunately as some of us would not be here if this had not occurred, the House was dissolved, there was an election and the bill died on the order paper.

However, I am pleased to note that amendments in Bill C-58 improve even further on the earlier amendment put forward and accepted by the government that were originally in Bill C-43. I will just share those with the House: a new policy statement and new definitions and, very important, the authority to require railways to implement safety performance monitoring. I refer the House to my earlier comments about the identification on the actual train cars that may be carrying chemicals that could be dangerous and this will help to improve that; a new safety compliance order targeted at safety management system deficiencies and increased authority even further for inspectors.

I think we can all take some pride in this bill because the reality is the government is recognizing the significance of safety in the rail system not only in rural Canada in western and eastern Canada and northern Ontario but indeed in the heart of our hustling, bustling cities where citizens are impacted both in terms of noise and in terms of safety. Municipalities can also be impacted tremendously in terms of their fiscal responsibilities.

I think it is great to have this bill here. It is about time. I agree with members that it would have been good if we could have done it quicker, but better now than not at all. I look forward to this going to committee and coming back to the House for third and final reading with the support of all members.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Mr. Speaker, I know the original plan had been that we were going to put up one speaker, and I am not going to keep hon. members for very long, but I could not end the day without passing some comments on Liberal rail safety.

As far as the bill goes, we are supporting it to move to committee where any bill can be improved. We certainly hope to discuss it openly with our colleagues on the other side and find ways to make the bill even better so that Canadians truly have rail safety.

I thought it appropriate at this time to talk about the other plan of the Liberals for rail safety. The Liberals are killing the economy in this country. They are making it so that we produce fewer goods, we sell fewer goods, we employ fewer people and we tax and suck the money out of the economy. If they keep doing that they will have rail safety because there will not be as many trains running. They are putting more impediments in the way of business every day, and that includes the railroads. We will have the ultimate rail safety, we will have the ultimate highway safety and we will have industrial safety because we will shut everything down.

I hope the Liberals can come up with a better plan for rail safety and all the other types of safety than continuing their chaotic economic forage into taxpayer pockets and come up with rail safety and other types of safety that work in a thriving, vibrant economy.

I also find it very ironic that the government would introduce a bill on rail safety at a time when it is derailing the APEC inquiry in Vancouver. A cabinet minister, the solicitor general, made public statements after specifically forbidding the RCMP to make any type of public statement which would derail the APEC inquiry. That is an interesting point which I think the Liberals have overlooked.

Recently in the United States there was a huge scandal, but the outcome of that scandal was not what the president had done to initiate that scandal—

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Order, please. I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member, but this bill is about rail safety. Political derailment may mean a lot of things to a lot of people, but when the bill deals with rail safety I am sure the member would want to address his remarks to something relevant to rail safety rather than derailment in a political sense.

I know the member would not want to get derailed in his remarks, so I would invite him to get back on the track and stick to the bill.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Jim Gouk Reform West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for putting me on the right track. Being as how you wield such power from your position, I am sure you also use it to get the Liberals on track with their national agenda.

When we talk about a government bill, be it rail safety, a tax bill, a justice bill, any kind of bill, I think it is appropriate to examine and review the credibility with which the various ministers bring forward these bills because each bill is brought forward in the name of a minister.

The rail safety bill was brought forward in the name of the Minister of Transport. There has to be credibility or those bills automatically suffer. Right now the Liberal cabinet lacks credibility because of its failure to take action in one particular area and that taints everybody. It does not matter which party. When we have a problem that we ignore or try to cover up it automatically taints everyone.

We have said, in the case of this rail safety bill, that we will go along with it. We will help to move it to committee. We will support this bill. Our critic said that this morning. We will deal with it openly and honestly when it gets to committee.

But it already has a black mark attached to it because it is presented in this House at the very time when the government is lacking credibility because of its failure to act on a real problem inside cabinet.

I am not going to continue. I am sure that hon. members want to reconsider their position on how to deal with this particular minister.

I will end my remarks by saying that we want the government to bring in good legislation. We want it to be credible and we want to be able to support it. However, it is hard to support government cabinet ministers when there is a bad apple in the barrel.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House ready for the question?

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC

Mr. Speaker, perhaps we could call it 2.30 p.m.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is it agreed that we call it 2.30 p.m.?

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Railway Safety ActGovernment Orders

12:20 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

It being 2.30 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 12.25 p.m.)